Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is homosexuality is the result of genetics

  1. Dec 6, 2003 #1
    If homosexuality is the result of genetics gone wrong then how come their is no other gay animals in the world?
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 6, 2003 #2
    Re: question

    There are recorded examples of homosexual behavior among a number of animal species.
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2003
  4. Dec 7, 2003 #3
    Do mind giving any examples?
  5. Dec 7, 2003 #4
    Put 2 young male dogs in a pen together. Watch and learn.

  6. Dec 7, 2003 #5
    Of examples I've heard of, there has been observed homosexual activity between: dogs, rats, elephants, rhinocerouses, dolphins, chimpanzees, lions, giraffes, cows, sheeps, gorillas, and a lifelong homosexual relationship between two male ganders, to name just a few off the top of my head.
  7. Dec 7, 2003 #6
    Surely, you can come up with more than that. You left out humans


  8. Dec 7, 2003 #7
    That usually happens out of aggressive behavior or competition of who is the dominant one. Its not driven by a sexual attraction.
  9. Dec 7, 2003 #8
    How do you know?
  10. Dec 8, 2003 #9
    Because there is no intent of actual mating happening its more of mislead aggressiveness
  11. Dec 8, 2003 #10
    I repeat my question.
  12. Dec 8, 2003 #11
    because almost all of the time they get intimate with a leg or stomach and never in the normal spot where mating is always intended.
  13. Dec 8, 2003 #12
    What are you talking about? Even if I were to accept the above claim as true -- and I'm not sure why I should -- what is "the normal spot where mating is always intended"? Are you talking about direct genital-to-genital contact? That doesn't tend to happen even in human homosexual congress. How does one experimentally determine whether sexual attraction is involved? Is it involved between animals in heterosexual congress? How can we tell?
  14. Dec 8, 2003 #13
    I don't know ask a biologist
  15. Dec 9, 2003 #14
    I, also, am confused as to what you consider the "normal" spot. Like I stated, earlier. Put 2 male dogs in a pen and watch. I am not sure if you consider the anus a "normal" spot, but it is as normal as human anal sex.

  16. Dec 9, 2003 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I've had lots of cats and dogs (among rodents and birds). All the cats have been.. euh.. well, castrated so I have no data on that. The dogs do quite a bit of humping though, I wouldn't say it is homosexual behaviour, just an instinct, like dogs humping a leg.

    I think homosexual behaviour should be defined as the formation of life-partner. Not sure which animals do that, some parrots do, maybe someone has done the research whether all the couples are male-female or some are not?
  17. Dec 9, 2003 #16
    I can understand that a female can have sex with another female and be considered a "bisexual". But if a male has sexual relations with another male - he is a homosexual - whether it is a life partner or not. I guess I don't understand why you think, one has to form a life partner - to be considered a homosexual. That is like saying male and female who have only intercourse are not heterosexual.

  18. Dec 10, 2003 #17
    What I'm trying to get at in this thread is that homosexuality seems to be a psychological thing, meaning that it is a choice, as opposed to gene mix ups.
  19. Dec 10, 2003 #18
    Are you under the impression that genetics has no influence on psychology?
  20. Dec 10, 2003 #19
    Remember, it's not "gene mix-ups" but hormone "mix-ups". Even if homosexuality was a genetic trait (which it isn't) it wouldn't be passed too often methinks ...

    Anyway, you are probably right that this is often the case, but not always or even necessarily usually.
  21. Mar 19, 2007 #20
    Heterosexuality is rare in nature

    Friends let me present a totally different perspective.

    There is hardly any evidence of heterosexuality amongst mammals. And its incidence is only substantial in birds, but almost absent in other species.

    Now before you all jump at me. Let me start by saying that the western concepts of 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' are quite misleading (for one thing since there is a group 'homosexual' we automatically associate male-male sexuality with that group, whereas it doesn't work that way practically). So let me give you my own definition of heterosexuality.

    In India males don't consider themselves 'heterosexual' (nor homosexual). They are either masculine men or feminine males (third gender). Besides bisexual behaviour is very common.

    Redefinition of Heterosexuality:

    Heterosexuality is used for the following kinds of male-female sex:

    - Sex for reproduction

    - constant/ exclusive sexual desire for opposite sex.

    - A need for sexual bonding between opposite sex.

    Of these only the last two traits form the distinguishing feature of a 'heterosexual'. Sex for reproduction is a drive that may come rarely or intermittently in life and one doesn't need to be a 'heterosexual' for that. E.g. one can be in a relationship with another man but still may have sex for reproduction.

    What I am saying is,........ and I'm saying it after studying wildlife a lot........

    that in nature (except for birds) there is only sex for reproduction. there is no sex for bonding between opposite sex, and male-female sex for purely pleasure is also very rare.

    Esp. in mammals male and female live in separate, non-heterosexual groups (excepts for a few males in some species who may join the female group, either as transgenders or as owner of 'harems'). Males and females meet each other only during the mating season. This meeting/ mating is very short and usually ends when sufficient ejaculation to ensure reproduction is achieved. Soon after that the male (and the female) lose interest in each other. There is no constant sexual desire for each other. And surely there is no emotional bonding like love happening here. Males (and females) don't even look at each other or recognise each other's presence once they get over with it. And the sexual feelings of males is definitely not exclusively towards females. They are very open to, and in fact prefer bisexual behaviour.

    It is not that sexual 'bonding' doesn't exist in mammals. But rather than with the opposite sex, it happens amongst same-sex as is shown by various studies (Please refer to Bagemihl's book "biological exuberances).

    Therefore, same-sex feelings may neither be psychological nor a genetic mix-up but the preferred sexuality of nature.

    Whereas, opposite sex bonding, and an exclusive/ constant sexual desire for women, as displayed by human males is probably neither normal nor natural. It is either 'caused' by something special that humans have, or is purely a result of social mechanisms that condition, train and force people (especially men) to be heterosexual.

    You may jump in to tear me apart, NOW!
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook